Talk:Shadow
I'm seeing renewals for the Shadow Comics and Magazines. Also we haven't been adding radio characters due the ambiguity of the law. Check this page for more info. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 01:59, July 10, 2013 (UTC) I didn't see renewals for the comics (although I may not be looking in the places that you know of to look in?). The films (I believe) I got correct for sure but, if you know of something I don't regarding the comics, I would greatly appreciate knowing where you look (I made a mistake with Barbarella, I could be wrong here too - I don't know a whole lot about international *I'm Canadian - The US is international to me* law so would love any insight you can provide). Thanks in advance! Cebr1979 (talk) 03:05, July 10, 2013 (UTC) I can't wait for the Shadow to become PD, but I'm not sure what the character is doing on this site in 2013. The character first appeared in 1930 as a voice on a radio program, which is likely under some form of copyright, as most sound recordings are in the US. Of course, the character was not really fleshed out until the first issue of the pulp, The Shadow Magazine (April, 1931). That magazine was renewed, and the story contains a significant number of the features that make the Shadow who he is, meaning you'd have to deviate significantly from the original source, if using any version of him displayed in a public domain work. Just a very precursory search unveils: The Shadow: issues renewed from April 1931 (v. 1 no. 1); see 1958 Jan-Jun Shadow Comics: issues renewed from 1940 (v. 1 no. 1); see 1967 If there are any Shadow works in the public domain (comics, pulps, movies, etc), I'd like to know which ones are. I haven't heard of any. Is the image on this article known to be public domain? Seems to me that the Shadow has been profitable enough (even more than Captain Marvel or Blackhawk at the time) to keep people interested in maintaining the copyrights. I imagine any works that introduced significant new elements of the character are still under copyright, and attempting to use the character in any recognizable capacity would likely result in violation of copyright. Keep in mind that even Dynamite assumes The Shadow to be under copyright.Freeuniverse (talk) 00:58, July 11, 2013 (UTC)Freeuniverse The movies I've listed here are most definitely in the PD and can be downloaded at for free (the link is on his wikipedia page). Perhaps this is a case like the Grant Gardner?Captain America?Cebr1979 (talk) 20:50, July 11, 2013 (UTC) Updated to take references to comic books & pulps out.Cebr1979 (talk) 18:19, July 12, 2013 (UTC) I think the existence of a Shadow article on this site is misleading to creators, because there's little, if any, way they can actually create works featuring the Shadow character in the public domain movies without their work being derivative of the copyrighted works from which the movies were derived. This is why a character can really only be considered "public domain" if their first appearance (or in the case of the Shadow, the first defining appearance) is public domain. The situation here is more akin to the situation with the public domain Superman cartoons, than it is to the Grant Gardner Captain America. If you created a new work using the Superman that appeared in those cartoons, all the important and defining characteristics of that character are still derived from the copyrighted comics (or the Simon and Schuster concept sketches as the case may be). The only reason you can safely use Grant Gardner is because he is a well defined character that is really not derivative of the Captain America from the comics, except in his code name and costume. And I advise against using both the name and costume in conjunction. For one thing, the Captain America name is a trademark. You could probably get away with putting Gardner in the costume from the movie, as it is a bit different than the one in the comics. But the costume and name together would make him less distinct from the comics character. I would not envy your chances in court. So, as far as the Shadow's PD movie appearances, you have to ask the question, "Is there any information about this character revealed in the movies that isn't derivative of a copyrighted source?" Well, the name Kent Allard and Lamont Cranston used as aliases of a character named The Shadow is derived from a copyrighted work. So is his backstory and his crusade against crime and his abilities. So most of what appears in this article is actually derived from copyrighted sources and is not anything a creator can use. In the movie The Shadow Strikes, the character's alter ego is Lamont Granston, but that is not substantially different from Lamont Cranston, so you still can't really use it. In International Crime, the character is almost nothing like the Shadow from the pulps. So you can use pretty much everything about that character, except what is derived from copyrighted sources. That would be the fact that he is a crime fighter who uses the name The Shadow, and the secret identity, Lamont Cranston. So, in other words, you can use the character from that film, if you divorce him from his last connections to the pulp hero. Basically, you can't use the character if he is recognizable as a copyrighted character. So whatever character you gleaned from the movies would have to be completely different than the pulp character, the way Grant Gardner is completely different than Steve Rogers. The reason I wanted to know which Shadow movies are PD, is because they probably feature villains and other characters that were not originally from the pulps. Some research would have to be done to verify that those characters did not appear in pulp stories, but superheroes were usually given NEW villains to fight in movie serials, so there might be some colorful villains in them that are PD. Examples: the Mechanical Monsters from the Superman cartoons and Tirza from pd episodes of Bonanza. Freeuniverse (talk) 07:38, July 13, 2013 (UTC)Freeuniverse Honestly... Like I'm so bored and ready to barf over yours (and others) arguments... Quit "picking and choosing" which characters "meet your standards!" CAPTAIN AMERICA was all fine and good as a PD character when CRIMSONCRUSADER added him to the site... Suddenly, I found a loop hole that might include "Steve Rogers" and "WHOA SHIT SON THE CHARACTERS NAME SHOULD PROBABLY BE CHANGED 'CAUSE, LIKE, I SAID SO!!!!" So... Like. What, Freeuniverse? Annie Oakley's'll fine and good till you decide you don't like literary characters "NO MORE?" This site's a WIKI. You guys know the definiton of that, right? 'Cause the rest of us don't need your permission (or some ridiculous "VOTE") to carry on... Welcome to the REAL WORLD... ...and the mission statement has been copy and pasted! Quit with the power trip. We can have you overruled! Freeuniverse and myself are trying to make sure the characters added are actually like the name of the wikia says Public Domain Superheroes (and yes I know we've expanded on that a little with adding other public domain characters and open source characters, but they're still public domain or freely licensed.) As you know, The goal for the site is to create an online resource for comic creators so they can find characters they can freely use in their own stories. However, if everything we know about the Shadow that makes him the Shadow such as his costume, abilities, identity, and supporting cast all came from copyrighted sources then all we're left with is a shell of generic pulp fiction character who ceases to be the Shadow. Which I think is what Freeuniverse was trying to convey. That being said I'm fine with having the version that appears in the PD serials and the comic strips appear on the site which for the most part seems to be what the page is describing now. We just need to remove any remaining details about the Shadow that originate from other sources which shouldn't be to hard since the Shadow's media is pretty easy to find. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 14:44, July 13, 2013 (UTC) "Freeuniverse and myself are trying to make sure the characters added are actually like the name of the wikia says Public Domain Superheroes (and yes I know we've expanded on that a little with adding other public domain characters and open source characters, but they're still public domain or freely licensed.)" Regarding open-source characters... You've "expanded" on NOTHING. The site was created in January, 2009, and originally based on open-source characters like Outworlder and co. You showed up a month later. Lord only knows when you became an admin and, quite frankly, Lord only cares! The mission statement reflects and accepts open source characters! Accept them, dude! Quit complaining that you "agree, they need a new home, blah, blah, blah, barf." They're here and have been since before you were! Deal or move on, your self! You don't hear them complaining about you, do you? Is the wiki running out of room? Are their only so many profiles allowed per wiki? Rhetorical, dude. We both know the answer is, "NO!" Calm down. Everyone has their own corner here. You may be the most famous admin currently on patrol but, you don't own the place. Public domain includes open source (and has since before the public domain knew you existed). Embrace both, or move on and start your own site where you can create rules as you so deem fit. No one... Absolutely NO ONE has broken any rules based on this wiki's mission statement. Just pointing that out! Apparently, you didn't know the history of the site. Glad we met! Someone in your position should know where this place came from. Just saying.Cebr1979 (talk) 10:03, July 15, 2013 (UTC) Cebr, I know that you think we're all "paranoid" and so boring we want to make you "barf," but I'd like to point out that your habit of insulting contributors that disagree with you is not entirely helpful in establishing a cooperative community of contributors. Crimson and myself are not here trying to ruin all your fun. We want this site to be a trusted resource, and it can't be trusted if we have articles that give bad information. This isn't a matter of our personal preferences. If Shadow was public domain, I would have added him long ago, because I think he's super cool. It would be my preference that he was public domain. But I don't believe he is, and I'm trying to give you my reasons for believing that. While I understand your reasoning for thinking that Steve Rogers is public domain based on the limited evidence you've seen, I believe there is more to the story than you know. Rob Liefeld was SUED for using a character too similar to Captain America (and that character didn't even have the same name or costume). Marvel won. Rob Liefeld's lawyer couldn't find any evidence that Captain America was public domain. The court saw no reason to believe it. AC Comics, Moonstone Books and Dynamite Entertainment don't seem to believe it. It doesn't appear that anyone else on the planet believes Captain America is public domain, but we're supposed to trust that you know better than everyone? Have you been to the library of congress to research it? I think the burden of proof is on you, and that we don't deserved to be bashed for not wanting misinformation published that would likely get someone into serious trouble. You seem to view everything in terms of personal politics, but frankly, I couldn't be more ambivelant. This site discusses BORING legal issues, because the legality of using a character is the standard by which we "pick and choose" which characters are displayed. While we do have to make the occassional judgement call (such as the case with the Nedor characters, which I'm a little uncomfortable with), the rules and pretty hard and fast for a lot of characters. I think we try to err on the side of caution, and not post characters until we've seen pretty solid proof that they are PD. We don't waste anyone's time with our own wishful thinking. I've done extensive research on many characters I wanted on the site, but they're simply not PD. The reasons why a character is or is not PD are sometimes complex, and SHOULD be discussed in boring detail. If you have logical counterpoints based on the evidence that you've collected, then those counterpoints are welcome. But I am uniterested in pointless biterness. Yes, I admit, that when it comes to open source characters, I object partially because I just think that a lot of them are dumb (though some are brilliant). My opinion may not matter to anyone, but I do have a right to express it. And, no, this site isn't running out of room, but I don't want visitors to be turned off to the site because it is cluttered with garbage. Not just garbage because of the quality of the characters, but because of the stipulations required to use these characters. I personally think this site should be reserved for characters that are absolutely free of stipulation. Further, I realize now, that there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING legally binding about someone saying that their work is freely licensed or public domain on an Internet site. The Internet makes people annonymous, and a post on a forum does not carry the weight of a signature. These creators could change their mind at ANY time. While they couldn't sue you out of the blue unless their work was registered, they could send a cease and desist AFTER you spent $10,000 to print a comic book, and sue you if you proceeded to sell your book. It would be an easy way to force a royalty agreement or settlement. That is not a small problem. Will it happen? Probably not. But I don't want to be a party to telling people these characters are free and clear if there is any reason to believe that they're not. Now, you seem to think that the contributors who work on this site shouldn't have a right to vote on the kind of content it contains. Really? So, apparently, we are obligated to follow the guidelines that YOU establish, even when you seem to have no support? Even open source creators think the open source characters should be on another site. This site was founded by MadMikeyD and if he wants to chime in, then he can dictate on site content. Until then, I'm going to fight for what I think is in the best interest of the site and the creators who use it as a resource. I'm not going to back down because someone wants to insult me or make fun of me for raising a point. All that said, I believe there is virtually nothing on the current Shadow article that is usable. When I have time, I'll try to watch the movies online and see if I can salvage anything useful, but if the character keeps the name The Shadow, he can't keep any other feature that makes him recognizable as the pulp Shadow. That isn't a personal preference...that's how the law works! Substantial similarity = copyright infringement! A crimefighter named The Shadow already demonstrates similarity. Any more direct similarities puts you in dangerous water. Freeuniverse (talk) 01:24, July 16, 2013 (UTC)Freeuniverse If you can try to salvage what you can Freeuniverse it would be appreciated. Crimsoncrusader (talk) 01:39, July 16, 2013 (UTC)